Were the Lusitanians Celts or pre-Celts? What does the consensus argue? With the lack of Lusitanians samples, we cannot know genetically, but linguistically some argue it is a Celtic language considering the lexicon of several anthroponyms and toponymsothers argue the proximity of Lusitanian to the Italic languages mainly based on the names of Lusitanian deities with other etymological elements. and an intriguing theory, somewhat in the "Italic" hypothesis, is that the Luisitanian represents a kind of "Italo-Celt", an archaic branch of Celtic and Italic that separated early from the Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic populations, linking them to the Bell beakers.ellis evans says it's definitely celtic. What do you think? Culturally, I can't see much distinction in their material culture. but the deities are a little strange to some Celtic pantheons
>>17438771it has been confirmed that it is not Celtic. This hypothesis is simply dead, although we're not sure what they were, but it's related to the italics I imagine it's a basal branch or some shit like that
>>17438771Pre-Celtic
Wasn't it pretty much confirmed they were Slavs or proto-Slavs?
>>17439084Okay, I confused Lusatian culture with Lusitanians. My bad.
>>17439084>>17439096No problem man
The were celtsOnly celts could be so matriarchal >Appian claims that when Praetor Brutus sacked Lusitania after Viriathus's death, the women fought valiantly next to their men as women warriors
Pre Celts. There were actual Celts in Northen Iberia, different from Lusitanians
>>17440180Why?
>>17440311Celtiberians certainly spoke a Celtic language though it's exact position in the language family is uncertain. There also appear to be Gaulish tribes on the Asturian/Cantabrian (Orgenomescii is a completely Gaulish name) coast who likely arrived by sea at a much later date. Lusitanian was likely a pre-Celtic Urnfield language that seems closer to Italic than Celtic.
